It means that people who have no idea what science is like to pretend they have a deeper reason for their biases other than their innate preferences. They do not like that pointed out to them and will violently react to anyone who does.
You can't have a scientific response to the virus when you don't know what the asymptomatic transmission rate is, or what the true death rate is. As can be seen here it does not go well when they are made to even consider that they don't have all the information needed for a scientific response: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24077233
There are a lot of claims in the article that the current scientific consensus does not support. The T-cells claim is one of them. Of course there are no absolute truths and I agree that my choice of words was maybe unfortunate.
What does that mean? As a scientist myself, 'science' can basically never say anything definitive about reality. Not for something extremely well measured and controlled like GR, and especially not something where the evidence on the ground and influencing factors (policy, social opinion, culture) shift with a frequency on the same order of scale that our measurements can be tallied.